Agassi is by far Pete's main rival, and he totally was on top of his rival throughout the whole career. unlike Federer who has been losing to his main rival since the first match. Federer couldn't even manage to beat baby Nadal on hard court in their first meeting. Don't even get me start with their grand slam encounters...

Agassi is by far Pete's main rival, and he totally was on top of his rival throughout the whole career. unlike Federer who has been losing to his main rival since the first match. Federer couldn't even manage to beat baby Nadal on hard court in their first meeting. Don't even get me start with their grand slam encounters...

Click to expand...

Just goes to show what a strong era and rival Federer had that he was able to get demolished by him when he was just a 17 year old kid.

Sampras would **** himself if he had to face someone of such raw, natural talent.

We're talking about baby Nadal here. Of course, Roddick is no match for prime Nadal. Yet, Federer couldn't care to beat any version of Nadal, baby or prime.

Click to expand...

Nadal beat Roddick 6-7(6), 6-2, 7-6(6), 6-2, at the 2004 Davis Cup. Nadal was 18 years old at this point, so he was scoring wins over prime Roddick at just 18.

Now hang on about Federer not beating "baby or prime Nadal", he's lost to Federer in 2005 at Miami, although it was an incredibly close match. It's still a win and he still beat Nadal, so that renders that argument null.

He also beat Nadal in 2007 at Hamburg, 2009 in Madrid and this year at Indian Wells. His wins at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007 count towards the ending tally. Also the fact that Federer has been schooling Nadal at the Tennis Masters Cup every time they've played.

Eh, Roddick beat Nadal in both 2008 and 2010 which are widely recognized as Nadal's best years.

Click to expand...

That proves even further that big servers even with no game can still dominate prime Nadal. Pete with plenty of game to back up his huge serve would be virtually unbeatable against Nadal on fast surfaces.

That proves even further that big servers even with no game can still dominate prime Nadal. Pete with plenty of game to back up his huge serve would be virtually unbeatable against Nadal on fast surfaces.

Click to expand...

LOL! Should have seen this one coming, everything should be spinned to bolster Pete's greatness .

Every match-up is a story for itself, therefore drawing absolute conclusions about a hypothetical match-up from a specific match-up is faulty in itself.

Agassi is by far Pete's main rival, and he totally was on top of his rival throughout the whole career. unlike Federer who has been losing to his main rival since the first match. Federer couldn't even manage to beat baby Nadal on hard court in their first meeting. Don't even get me start with their grand slam encounters...

Click to expand...

Agassi was a goner in 1993, first half of 1994, most of 1996 and 1997-1998 - these are only Sampras' prime years. Wow, if Federer only had 1 year when Nadal didn't reach a FO final, he would smack Sampras' records and the Samprastards mouths for good. Instead, Nadal was there ALL the time, challenging him on every surface (compared to Agassi who had issues taking 4 games in a set on grass against Sampras), then Djokovic joined the party in 2007, Murray in 2008 and none has ever fallen out of the top 4-5. What was Agassi's ranking at the end of 1997 again?

That proves even further that big servers even with no game can still dominate prime Nadal. Pete with plenty of game to back up his huge serve would be virtually unbeatable against Nadal on fast surfaces.

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA

Sampras wouldn't even rally with Nadal. Once Rafa gets to his backhand, Sampras is done unless he uses a suicidal tactic in chip-and-charge. Which also means he's done but goes down in a flash instead of losing every point from a backhand error.

Sampras wouldn't even rally with Nadal. Once Rafa gets to his backhand, Sampras is done unless he uses a suicidal tactic in chip-and-charge. Which also means he's done but goes down in a flash instead of losing every point from a backhand error.

Click to expand...

So you think Nadal who has never face a great serve and volleyer in his life is capable of passing Pete Sampras at will?? :shock:

So you think Nadal who has never face a great serve and volleyer in his life is capable of passing Pete Sampras at will?? :shock:

Click to expand...

On the current surfaces? Sampras would have to be completely dumb to dare attack the net these days.

Now if we're talking about the 90's...that's a different story. Also in this aspect that Federer would have a much easier time against Nadal than these days when he literally has to outgrind him for 3 sets to beat him in majors and he ain't exactly young anymore.

So you think Nadal who has never face a great serve and volleyer in his life is capable of passing Pete Sampras at will?? :shock:

Click to expand...

You're so out of sync with reality,it's unbelievable. Somehow I think you're being purposely naive.

You honestly think Petros would stand a chance against Ralph say at the AO on plexicushion? Cmon, Petros couldn't even win more than 2 slams on rebound ace. Pete's BH would basically be obliterated by Ralph's moonballing and dare he came to the net he'd get passed so much he'd wish to be transported to the 80s or somethin.

Nadal beat Roddick 6-7(6), 6-2, 7-6(6), 6-2, at the 2004 Davis Cup. Nadal was 18 years old at this point, so he was scoring wins over prime Roddick at just 18.

Now hang on about Federer not beating "baby or prime Nadal", he's lost to Federer in 2005 at Miami, although it was an incredibly close match. It's still a win and he still beat Nadal, so that renders that argument null.

He also beat Nadal in 2007 at Hamburg, 2009 in Madrid and this year at Indian Wells. His wins at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007 count towards the ending tally. Also the fact that Federer has been schooling Nadal at the Tennis Masters Cup every time they've played.

Click to expand...

I notice you forgot to mention (probably conveniently) that this match was on clay in spain. Yes Nadal was only 18, but even at that point he was much better than Roddick on clay. I also notice you've mentioned some matches where Federer beat Nadal, but see here's the problem. Nadal was tired at 07 Hamburg and 09 Madrid, the wind was a problem in IW, Nadal was a baby at Wimbledon in 06 and the scheduling was the problem at 07 Wimbledon. And mentioning the TMC is laughable. It's only an exho. It counts for nothing.

As for Sampras's biggest rival, obviously it's Agassi, but it just shows that Federer's had a tougher rival. I've noticed a lot of people like to pump up Sampras's era, but if you take a closer look it's at least no better than Federer's era. Agassi had a late surge in his career, but he was so mentally tough that his ranking dropped to the point where he was playing challengers at 26 years of age because he couldn't handle the mental blow dealt to him by Sampras at the 1995 USO.

Courier couldn't handle Sampras when he hit his prime. Won 4 slams in between 1990 and 1993 before Sampras really hit his prime, and 2 of those on clay where Sampras was well below average anyway. Didn't beat Sampras at the Aussie when Sampras was heartbroken for his coach. That was probably his best chance.

I've also seen people that like to talk about Becker and Edberg. That's fine, but I don't believe Sampras ever had to beat Edberg at any point to win any of his slams. Edberg was past his prime by the time Sampras peaked, as was Becker, although to a slightly lesser extent.

My point is that if you dominate of course it will look like you have no competition, when in fact the more likely idea is that both Sampras and Federer are really really good.

Yea, Imagine if Ralph took off for some reason(meth or whatever) in 06/07,Fed would be sitting on 3 RGs and 2 CONSECUTIVE CYGS. :shock:

Ralph basically never let up in their rivalry unlike Pete who had freebies against freaking Pioline. :lol:

Click to expand...

Petros’ career didn’t need a full time rival because his era was far deeper than the current. When Andre was out of the equation you still had Courier, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter. All Hall of Famers. Then lower level guys like Chang, Kafelnikov, Korda, Ivanisevic that could pull out big wins no problem. This Generation you pretty much just have Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and only just recently Murray who are future Hall of Famers.

Sampras had multiple big rivals (Prime or a bit past prime). Edberg (he was #2 in the world in the early 90s), Becker, Agassi, Goran, Courier, Kafelnikov, Rafter etc.

Pete had to deal with multiple threats on ALL SURFACES to get his slams.. His biggest rival? Agassi (the 2nd most successful of his era) but I love how the ****s make it seem thats all Pete dealt with.. He dealt with multiple slam champs and guaranteed HOF'ers. More then Swissie ever dealt with

Petros’ career didn’t need a full time rival because his era was far deeper than the current. When Andre was out of the equation you still had Courier, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter. All Hall of Famers. Then lower level guys like Chang, Kafelnikov, Korda, Ivanisevic that could pull out big wins no problem. This Generation you pretty much just have Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and only just recently Murray who are future Hall of Famers.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, because Lendl is part of the Sampras "era" now is he? Hewitt, Roddick and Safin are all arguably better than everyone in your list bar Courier, Becker, and Edberg (I'm not counting Lendl, that's laughable). Edberg was definitely past his prime by the time Sampras started winning consistently, and Nadal has more slams than Courier and Becker put together. I see the other resident 90's **** has picked up where you left off.

Petros’ career didn’t need a full time rival because his era was far deeper than the current. When Andre was out of the equation you still had Courier, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter. All Hall of Famers. Then lower level guys like Chang, Kafelnikov, Korda, Ivanisevic that could pull out big wins no problem. This Generation you pretty much just have Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and only just recently Murray who are future Hall of Famers.

edberg was done by the time sampras hit his peak , he just beat sampras twice before that in slams though ... lendl was done before sampras hit his peak .......

Click to expand...

Safin could have been but injuries and lack of focus derailed his career (Where was Safin between the USO in 2000 and AO 2005?). Edberg was #2 in the world in the early 90s.. Far from washed up at that point.

Roddick is the equivalent of Rafter.. But hes not that much above Kafelnikov, Chang, Stich etc.

Hewitt is up there but he was also finished after 2005. His peak lasted a very short time as well and he could only muster 2 slams in a transitional era for men's tennis when the field was wide open (2001-2003)

Petros’ career didn’t need a full time rival because his era was far deeper than the current. When Andre was out of the equation you still had Courier, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter. All Hall of Famers. Then lower level guys like Chang, Kafelnikov, Korda, Ivanisevic that could pull out big wins no problem. This Generation you pretty much just have Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and only just recently Murray who are future Hall of Famers.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you didn't leave anyone out? :lol:

According to Sards, Kuerten was also Peter's competition on clay when infact they've never even played once on clay. :lol:

Safin could have been but injuries and lack of focus derailed his career (Where was Safin between the USO in 2000 and AO 2005?). Edberg was #2 in the world in the early 90s.. Far from washed up at that point.

Click to expand...

so what ? sampras probably hit his peak from 93 wimbledon onwards ... edberg didn't make a single semi at a slam after that ....

safin was still making finals at the AO in 2002 , only lost in the semis @ the FO to ferrero in 2002 ( RG champion )

he won paris beating hewitt, lost in the finals of hamburg to in-form federer ....

it was only in 2003 that he was MIA ( due to injury )

he reached the finals of AO in 2004 beating agassi & roddick, losing to federer there , he was also playing well indoor season 2004 ( winning paris, madrid back to back and making semis @ TMC , losing to federer in a classic match )

Instead, Nadal was there ALL the time, challenging him on every surface (compared to Agassi who had issues taking 4 games in a set on grass against Sampras)

Click to expand...

Please. Nadal didnt even make the semis of any hard court slam until 2008. He has still never won a set vs Federer indoors. Agassi in one of his worst years ever took Sampras to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 1993, and he had numerous top showings at all the Australian, Wimbledon, U.S Open, and WTFs Sampras was winning from 1993-1998, unlike Nadal who had none at the Australian, U.S Open, or WTF until atleast 2008 when Federer's dominance was already over forever.

I do think that Sergi Bruguera had the game and style of play to be a pretty nightmare match-up for Sampras had they played more often on clay and hard courts. Of course Bruguera did lead their h2h 3-2 anyway, with a victory on hard courts at Miami in 1997.

I've always thought that while Federer would get the better off Muster and Courier in hypothetical head to heads on clay, Bruguera would cause him the most difficulties on slow surfaces out of any of those players from the 90s.

11 out of 11 deny the fact that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were Pete's biggest rivals.

Or maybe the person who said that is clueless...

Click to expand...

Or maybe you fail to understand the circumstance in which I claimed what I did (like say purposely parodying you and your fellow Sampras fanboys), I'd try to explain it further but I'm afraid you'd get confused again.

Oh and using TW polls as proof of anything is quite hilarious, I could find you polls conducted on this forum in which Fed won by an overwhelming margin (while having a far bigger sample size of voters) over your mancrush Sampras (who's the better grasscourter, who's the better USO player etc.) and somehow I doubt you'd accept their results as the gospel truth.

Or maybe you fail to understand the circumstance in which I claimed what I did (like say purposely parodying you and your fellow Sampras fanboys), I'd try to explain it further but I'm afraid you'd get confused again.

Oh and using TW polls as proof of anything is quite hilarious, I could find you polls conducted on this forum in which Fed won by an overwhelming margin (while having a far bigger sample size of voters) over your mancrush Sampras (who's the better grasscourter, who's the better USO player etc.) and somehow I doubt you'd accept their results as the gospel truth.

I notice you forgot to mention (probably conveniently) that this match was on clay in spain. Yes Nadal was only 18, but even at that point he was much better than Roddick on clay. I also notice you've mentioned some matches where Federer beat Nadal, but see here's the problem. Nadal was tired at 07 Hamburg and 09 Madrid, the wind was a problem in IW, Nadal was a baby at Wimbledon in 06 and the scheduling was the problem at 07 Wimbledon. And mentioning the TMC is laughable. It's only an exho. It counts for nothing.
As for Sampras's biggest rival, obviously it's Agassi, but it just shows that Federer's had a tougher rival. I've noticed a lot of people like to pump up Sampras's era, but if you take a closer look it's at least no better than Federer's era. Agassi had a late surge in his career, but he was so mentally tough that his ranking dropped to the point where he was playing challengers at 26 years of age because he couldn't handle the mental blow dealt to him by Sampras at the 1995 USO.

Courier couldn't handle Sampras when he hit his prime. Won 4 slams in between 1990 and 1993 before Sampras really hit his prime, and 2 of those on clay where Sampras was well below average anyway. Didn't beat Sampras at the Aussie when Sampras was heartbroken for his coach. That was probably his best chance.

I've also seen people that like to talk about Becker and Edberg. That's fine, but I don't believe Sampras ever had to beat Edberg at any point to win any of his slams. Edberg was past his prime by the time Sampras peaked, as was Becker, although to a slightly lesser extent.

My point is that if you dominate of course it will look like you have no competition, when in fact the more likely idea is that both Sampras and Federer are really really good.

Click to expand...

And an exhibition is apart of the ATP tour now? Talk about excuses, you're making quite a few right now. It's nice to know that you have double standards.

Please. Nadal didnt even make the semis of any hard court slam until 2008. He has still never won a set vs Federer indoors. Agassi in one of his worst years ever took Sampras to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 1993, and he had numerous top showings at all the Australian, Wimbledon, U.S Open, and WTFs Sampras was winning from 1993-1998, unlike Nadal who had none at the Australian, U.S Open, or WTF until atleast 2008 when Federer's dominance was already over forever.

Click to expand...

That's funny cause in a 3,5-year span Federer faced Nadal as many times as Sampras met Agassi in majors in 12 years. A gazillion times at the French Open, 3 times at Wimbledon and once at the Australian Open. Federer and Nadal haven't met a lot since then but Murray and Djokovic have already been established since then so it didn't matter. Sampras, besides Agassi, didn't have any other real threats (at least on non-clay surfaces - he sucked there anyway), it's only his problem that guys like Yzaga, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Kodra, Kucera etc. could take him out.

Who cares Agassi was "mature" enough to win all the majors and be a contender everywhere if he didn't face Sampras at all? They met exactly 9 times in majors in a 13-year span which isn't even an average of 1 match per year. This is quite hilarious if you take into consideration that
-Sampras was roughly the same age as Agassi - so they could play each other often compared to Federer being 5 years older than Nadal (and despite that they still played each other very often)
-both Sampras and Agassi specialized on faster surfaces - whereas Nadal loves clay courts/slow courts en general while Federer prefers more pace (but is still excellent on clay courts)